AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiffs, High Plains Livestock, LLC, Michael Flen, Calvin Pareo, and Darcie Pareo, were involved in a prolonged conflict with the New Mexico Livestock Board and its agents, culminating in a search warrant executed on January 21, 2015. Following the search, Darcie and Calvin Pareo faced criminal charges, which were later dismissed or reduced to misdemeanors. Plaintiffs alleged defamation, malicious abuse of process, violation of property rights, due process, and equal protection claims against the Defendants, seeking injunctive relief as well (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• State v. Pareo, 2018-NMCA-040, 420 P.3d 605: Charges against Darcie and Calvin Pareo were dismissed because they were not permitted to testify before being indicted.
• District Court of Roosevelt County: Plaintiffs filed a complaint, which was removed to federal court and then remanded back to the district court. The district court granted a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment on the remaining claims after the criminal proceedings against the Pareos concluded (paras 5-6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the New Mexico Civil Rights Act waives sovereign immunity for Defendants, claims were timely and properly notified, sovereign immunity cannot be claimed under the CRA, state law claims are not barred by res judicata, they stated a claim for which relief can be granted, and their claim for injunctive relief was improperly denied (para 1).
• Defendants: Filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ federal claims in federal court, which was granted. After remand, they filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on the remaining claims in state district court, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted and that the claims were barred by sovereign immunity, among other defenses (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Civil Rights Act waives sovereign immunity for Defendants.
• Whether Defendants were given proper notice and claims were made within the statute of limitations.
• Whether Defendants can claim sovereign immunity based on the CRA.
• Whether Plaintiffs' state law claims are barred by res judicata.
• Whether Plaintiffs stated a claim for which relief can be granted regarding their malicious abuse of process, defamation, violation of property rights, due process, and equal protection claims.
• Whether Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief was improperly denied (para 1).

Disposition

• The district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs’ tort-based claims for defamation was reversed, and the dismissal of other claims was affirmed (para 39).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Bustamante, found that the New Mexico Civil Rights Act's provisions, including the prohibition of qualified immunity, apply prospectively and do not affect actions occurring before July 1, 2021. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of most claims based on sovereign immunity, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. However, it reversed the dismissal of defamation claims related to statements made after the execution of the search warrant, finding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a claim for defamation to withstand dismissal at the pleading stage. The court declined to address arguments related to the statute of limitations and res judicata, as the majority of claims were dismissed on other grounds (paras 16-38).